Efficiently displaying information about the interrelationships between documents

ABSTRACT

A system for displaying, on a computer screen, information concerning the interrelationships of documents. A system employing the present invention also allows for the efficient research of documents that cite a document shown on the computer screen. In one embodiment, the present invention involves displaying at least a portion of a first document and simultaneously displaying a representation of one or more citing documents. The citing documents cite some portion of the displayed document. In another embodiment, the invention involves displaying at least a portion of a first document, and displaying a representation of one or more citing documents, wherein the displayed citing documents cite the displayed portion of the first document.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of copending application Ser. No.10/652,670, filed Aug. 29, 2003, which is a continuation of Ser. No.09/784,469, filed Feb. 16, 2001, which is a continuation of Ser. No.09/245,183, filed Feb. 5, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,351, which is acontinuation of Ser. No. 09/014,669, filed Jan. 28, 1998, now U.S. Pat.No. 5,870,770, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/487,925, filedJun. 7, 1995, now abandoned. All of these applications are herebyincorporated by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a system and method of displayinginformation on a computer screen. A system employing the presentinvention provides an efficient procedure for researching documents andthe interrelationships between documents. The present invention isparticularly applicable to research involving documents that extensivelycite or refer to other documents.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The nature of many academic and professional writings is such thatauthors rely upon and cite previously published works, studies, or testresults to support arguments or opinions. For example, in the common lawsystem in America, lawyers and judges cite and rely upon previouslydecided cases (i.e., written judicial opinions) to support theirarguments and opinions. The American common law system is particularlyreliant upon the precedent established by previous case decision becausea judicial court (or judge) will usually consider as very persuasive apreviously-decided case in which the same legal issue has been resolvedor decided.

However, courts will not always agree with, or be bound by,previously-decided cases. Instead of agreeing with a conclusion reachedin a previous case, or “following” it, courts may occasionally, disagreewith, criticize, question, reverse, or overrule the previous case.Therefore, beginning with the first time a case is cited in a subsequentcase, the earlier case's authoritative value can change. For example, ifa persuasive judge is critical of the earlier case, that earlier casewill be less authoritative than it was before the judge's criticaltreatment of the case. On the other hand, if the judge strongly supportsthe reasoning of the earlier case, the authoritative value of theearlier case will be enhanced. Virtually every time a case is discussedor cited, its authoritativeness or precedential status is affected. Theimportance or precential status of a case can continue to evolve overmany years as a result of interpretations given to it by judges insubsequent cases.

Therefore, when considering a legal issue decided in a court's writtenopinion or decision, it is critical to consider what subsequent caseshave said about it. Lawyers performing legal research consequently havea need to determine which later cases have discussed (and therefore,cited) any given earlier case. For many years, lawyers have been able tofind out which later cases have cited any given case by using a toolknown as Shepherd's Citations published by McGraw-Hill, Inc. Shepard'sCitations is basically an organized index that lists all the cases thathave cited a particular case. When a later case is cites an earliercase, there is usually some discussion of the earlier, cited case.Shepard's Citations also sometimes gives a brief indication of how thelater case treated the earlier case of interest (e.g., the later casemay have “followed,” “criticized,” or “questioned” the earlier case).

In recent years, legal research has been increasingly performed bylawyers using computerized legal research systems. The most popular ofthese may be the on-line legal research systems, such as Westlaw andLEXIS/NEXIS. However, legal research systems employing local CD-ROM orother databases have become quite popular.

FIG. 1 a is a representation of a screen taken from the Westlaw legalresearch system operated by the West Publishing Company. The screenshows a portion of the text of the Wilson Sporting Goods case shown at101 in FIG. 1 a. The title bar 102 includes the citations 103 for theWilson case, which are 904 F.2d 677, and 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1942. These twocitations mean that the Wilson case can be found starting at page 677 ofvolume 904 of the F.2d reporter series, or alternatively, starting atpage 1942 of volume 14 of the U.S.P.Q.2d reporter series.

Also shown in the title bar 102 is the “rank” 104 of the displayeddocument, which is simply the position or order of the Wilson case withrespect to all of the other documents found in the search conducted bythe user. In this particular example, the Wilson case is ranked secondout of three search documents. Each of the search documents is adocument that satisfies a particular query entered by the user, and inthe example shown in FIG. 1 a, three documents in the database CTAsatisfy the user's query.

The current page number and the number of pages in the document areshown in FIG. 1 a at 105. The number of pages essentially corresponds tothe number of screens the Wilson case fills. For example, FIG. 1 a showsthe first Westlaw page of the Wilson case, and FIG. 1 b shows Westlawpage 25. FIG. 1 b is the screen that is twenty-fifth of the thirty-ninescreens that make up the Wilson case. FIGS. 1 a and 1 b thus simply showdifferent portions of the text of the Wilson case.

As described above, when researching issues that are discussed in theWilson case, it is very useful to see what subsequently decided caseshave said about the analysis in the Wilson case. The Westlaw systemprovides access to this type of information through a number ofservices, one of which is the on-line version of Shepard's Citations. Inthe Westlaw system, the user can access this information by selecting amenu item from a pull-down menu or by selecting (i.e., “clicking on”) anon-screen button. When the user selects the Shepard's Citation servicein Westlaw while viewing the Wilson case, a screen similar to that shownin FIG. 1 c is displayed.

The top of FIG. 1 c shows at 110 a citation to the cited document, 904F.2d 677, which is the citation to the Wilson case. Thus, the Wilsoncase is considered, in this screen, to be the “cited” document. Aparallel citation to the Wilson case is shown at 114. FIG. 1 c alsocontains a list 112 of citations to a number of cases. The citations inthe list 112 are references to cases which cite the Wilson case. Thesecases listed at 112 are called “citing cases” because they are latercases that cite the Wilson case (i.e., the cited case). In other words,the text of each of the cases shown in the list 112 contains a specificreference to the Wilson case.

The citation 116 at the bottom of FIG. 1 c (“140 F.R.D. 121, 127”),indicates that a case having a citation to the Wilson case can be foundstarting at page 121 of volume 140 of the F.R.D. (Federal RulesDecisions) reporter series. The specific citation or reference to theWilson case can be found on page 127 of that volume. FIG. 1 c also showsat 118 that this citation references headnote 9 of the Wilson case. Thismeans that the case at 140 F.R.D. 121 cites the Wilson case for theissue discussed at headnote 9 of the Wilson case. The headnotes areprepared and categorized by the West Publishing Company.

As suggested at 120 of FIG. 1 c, the Shepard's listing for the Wilsoncase spans eight Westlaw screens. Page 2 of the Shepard's listing isshown in FIG. 1 d. This page lists additional citing cases (i.e., casesthat cite the Wilson case). As can be seen from FIGS. 1 c and 1 d, theShepard's citations are listed in a somewhat organized manner. Forexample, in FIG. 1 d, the cases decided in the First Circuit that citethe Wilson case are listed under the heading “Cir. 1,” and the cases inthe Second Circuit that cite the Wilson case are listed under heading“Cir. 2.”

FIG. 1 d also shows an instance in which the Shepard's listing analyzesone of the listed citations. At 122, the Shepard's listing suggests thatthe case published at 796 F.Supp. 640 (the “citing” case) “followed” theanalysis or reasoning of the Wilson case. This means that the citingcase (found at 796 F.Supp. 640) applied the same analysis as the courtin the Wilson case. The Shepard's Citations listing also willoccasionally provide other analysis of citing cases, and may, forexample, point out those cases which “explain,” “criticize,” or“reverse” the Wilson case.

As described above, the Westlaw system allows the researcher to see alist of citing cases, such as that provided by Shepard's Citations.However, the Westlaw system requires the user to move to another screento see these citations, thereby covering the displayed text of the caseof interest. This is distracting to the researcher, because once thetext of the case is no longer displayed, the researcher cannot referback to the displayed text without removing the citations from thescreen. In addition, because the citations list in Westlaw can often bemany screens in length, the user must perform the tedious task of pagingthrough the entire citations list and uncovering those citations thatare relevant to the particular portion of the displayed document thatthe researcher is studying. The Westlaw system and others in the art aretherefore relatively unsophisticated in the manner in which they displaylists of citing cases. None of the computer-based research systems inthe art provide a listing of which citing cases based on the context ofthe displayed document. Thus, none provide any indication of whichciting cases specifically refer to the text displayed on the screen orselected by the user.

SUMMARY OF INVENTION

The present invention relates to a method of displaying documents in aresearch system. In one embodiment, the method involves displaying atleast a portion of a first document and simultaneously displaying arepresentation of one or more citing documents. The citing documentscite some portion of the displayed document.

In another embodiment, the method involves displaying at least a portionof a first document, and displaying a representation of one or moreciting documents, wherein the citing documents cite the displayedportion of the first document. The citing documents could alternativelycite a highlighted part of the displayed portion of the first document.

Other embodiments are described in the Detailed Description.

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and systemfor efficiently researching interrelated documents.

It is a further object of the present invention to provide a method andsystem for analyzing the precedential value of a judicial opinion.

It is a still further object of the present invention to provide amethod and system for effectively conveying to the researcherinformation concerning the interrelationships of documents.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIGS. 1 a to 1 d are displays illustrating the operation of the Westlawresearch system.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a system in accordance with an embodimentof the present invention.

FIG. 3 a is a view of a screen on which the text of a document isdisplayed, and representations of citing documents are also displayed.

FIG. 3 b is a view of the screen of FIG. 3 a after the user has scrolledthe text of the document.

FIG. 3 c is a view of the screen after selection of one of therepresentations of the citing documents.

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of the process steps in one embodiment of thepresent invention.

FIG. 5 a is a view of a screen in another embodiment of the presentinvention.

FIG. 5 b illustrates the updating of the citing cases box upon scrollingthe text of the displayed document.

FIGS. 5 c and 5 d illustrate further updating of the citing cases box.

FIG. 5 e illustrates the change to the display after selection of one ofthe representations.

FIG. 5 f illustrates the selection of another representation.

FIG. 5 g illustrates the selection of the previous case representation.

FIGS. 5 h and 5I illustrate the further selection of representations ofciting cases.

FIG. 6 is a flow diagram of process steps similar to that carried out inconnection with FIGS. 5 a to 5 i.

FIG. 7 a is a view of a screen on which the text of a document isdisplayed, and representations of citing documents are also displayed.

FIG. 7 b illustrates the retention of representations of previous citingcases in the citing cases box.

FIG. 7 c further illustrates the retention of representations ofprevious citing cases in the citing cases box.

FIG. 7 d illustrates and points out markers or highlighting that is usedto indicate which representations have already been displayed.

FIG. 8 is a flow diagram of process steps similar to that carried out inconnection with FIGS. 7 a to 7 d.

FIG. 9 a is a view of a screen on which the text of a document isdisplayed, as well as a citing cases box and a citing cases bin.

FIG. 9 b is a view of the screen of FIG. 9 a after the user has scrolledthe text of the document.

FIG. 9 c illustrates the updating of the citing cases box and the citingcases bin when the text of the displayed document is scrolled.

FIG. 9 d illustrates the updating of the display upon selection by theuser of a representation of a citing case.

FIG. 10 a is a view of a screen in another embodiment of the presentinvention, in which the text of a document is displayed.

FIG. 10 b is a window displayed upon selection of button 1008 in FIG. 10a.

FIG. 10 c illustrates the scrolling of the text of the documentdisplayed in FIG. 10 a FIG. 10 d illustrates how the window of FIG. 10 bwould be updated upon the scrolling of the text as shown in FIG. 10 c.

FIG. 10 e illustrates the selection of one of the representations ofciting cases in FIG. 10 d.

FIG. 10 f illustrates a window that could be employed in alternativeembodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 11 is a flow diagram of process steps similar to that carried outin connection with FIGS. 10 a to 10 e.

FIG. 12 a is a view of a web page in an internet-based implementation ofthe present invention.

FIG. 12 b illustrates a different portion of the web page of FIG. 12 a.

FIG. 12 c illustrates the bottom of the web page of FIG. 12 a, where arepresentation of a citing case is displayed at the bottom of the webpage.

FIG. 12 d is a view of the web page retrieved upon selection of therepresentation in FIG. 12 c.

FIG. 12 e is a view of a different portion of the web page of FIG. 12 d.

FIG. 12 f illustrates the bottom of the web page of FIG. 12 d, whererepresentations of citing cases are displayed at the bottom of the webpage.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The present invention relates to a method of displayinginterrelationships of documents on a computer screen. Specifically, thepresent invention relates to a computerized research system thatprovides the researcher with information about documents that cite adocument that the user is studying.

FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a system in one embodiment of thepresent invention. The system 200 has a central processing unit (CPU)201, a memory unit 202, and i/o circuitry 203. The CPU 201 is connectedto I/O circuitry 203 to permit data transfers with input devices 205 anddisplay 204. The input device 205 can be a keyboard, pen, mouse,voice-recognition circuitry, or any other input device known to those inthe art. Some type of secondary or mass storage 206 is generallyconsidered desirable. In a typical implementation, the secondary storageis a hard or floppy disk. Generally, any data storage medium as is knownin the art can be used as the secondary storage 206. The secondarystorage 206 can also be eliminated by providing a sufficient amount ofmemory in the memory unit 202. The memory 202 or, alternatively, thesecondary storage 206 are considered data storage mediums. It is alsopossible to have an input device act as a data storage medium.

The physical structure of the database 207 may involve one or more harddisks, CD-ROMs, or any other mass storage devices and may or may not bedistributed. The database 207 may also be integrated into the secondarystorage device 206. As is well known in the art, the database 207 can benear or local to the CPU 201, or it can be remotely located relative tothe CPU 201. Any type of database 207 that is capable of operatingaccording to the present invention is appropriate.

FIG. 3 a is a display illustrating one embodiment of the presentinvention in which the text window 302 shows the text of the firstportion of the Graver Tank case that was decided by the U.S. SupremeCourt in 1950. The title window 304 contains the brief title of theGraver Tank case, and the box 310 shows a citation to the Graver Tankcase. The scroll bar 306 allows the user to scroll through the text ofthe Graver Tank case by selecting the down arrow button 308 or by movingthe scroll button 316 in a manner well known in the art. FIG. 3 b showsthe text window 302 after the user has moved the scroll button 316 downslightly.

FIGS. 3 a and 3 b also show a citing cases box 311 in whichrepresentations 312 of a number of cases that cite the Graver Tank caseare listed. The citing cases box 311 is simply an area on the screen inwhich the representations of citing cases can be placed. Scroll bar 314allows the user to scroll through additional representations of citingcases when there are more representations of citing cases in the box 311than there is room for on the screen. Preferably, the citing cases boxwould include a representation of all existing cases that cite theGraver Tank case. However, normally only those cases in the database 207that cite the Graver Tank case are shown. The database 207 may or maynot be up-to-date.

The representations of the cases in the box 311 can be listed in aparticular order, such as by date decided, or by jurisdiction, or bysome other characteristic. It is also possible to include only a subsetof the cases in the database. For example, the user may only beinterested in seeing representations of cases that come from aparticular court or group of courts, or from a particular period oftime.

A representation is herein defined to be any indication, marker, button,menu item, link, or reference associated with another document. Arepresentation could also be labeled with the title, citation, or someother portion of the document. However, the representation need not belabeled as shown in the Figures. Representations may have any otherlabelling or alternatively, no labelling at all. A representation maycorrespond to a single document, or it may correspond to more than onedocument, or a group of documents. For example, instead of having arepresentation for each document, a representation may be simply abutton that corresponds to a plurality of documents, where therepresentation is labeled to indicate the number of citations therepresentation corresponds to.

In FIGS. 3 a and 3 b, the citing cases box 311 has a representation 312for each of the cases that cite the Graver Tank case. In the embodimentshown, the citing cases box 311 contains eight representations of casesthat cite the Graver Tank case. The representations 312 shown in thisembodiment are labeled so as to indicate the name 315 of the citingcase, the citation 316 to the citing case, the paragraph 317 in theciting case that cites the Graver Tank case, and also the Graver Tankparagraph 318 that is cited by the citing case. Thus, from this firstrepresentation, it can be seen that paragraph 43 of the Pennwalt casecites the sixth paragraph of the Graver Tank case. Similarly, therepresentation at the top of the box indicates that paragraph 13 of thePennwalt case, which is reported at 833 F.2d 931, cites paragraph fourof the Graver Tank case. There is more than one representation for thePennwalt case because the Pennwalt case cites the Graver Tank case morethan once. Similarly, the citing cases box 311 shows the Perkin-Elmercase cites the sixth paragraph of the Graver Tank case three times.

The user can display one of these citing cases by selecting arepresentation shown in the citing cases box 311. FIG. 3 c shows how thedisplay is updated when the user selects the first representation shownin the citing cases box 311. Selection can be done by any means known inthe art, such as by keyboard, mouse, pen, touch-screen, voice command,or otherwise. The text box 302 of FIG. 3 c has been updated to show thebeginning of the Pennwalt case, which corresponds to the representationat the top of the citing cases box 311 in FIG. 3 b. The user can scrollthrough the text of the Pennwalt case in FIG. 3 c by manipulating thescroll bar 306.

Also as shown in FIG. 3 c, the citing cases box 311 is updated tocontain representations of the cases that cite the Pennwalt decision.The representations of the cases citing the Graver Tank case are removedfrom the citing cases box 311. Thus, when the text box contains a newcase, the citing cases box 311 is updated to reflect the cases that citethe new decision.

FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment similar to thatdescribed in connection with FIGS. 3 a, 3 b, and 3 c. As shown, thefirst step 401 in the flow chart involves simultaneously displaying aportion of a document (such as the portion displayed in the text box 302in FIGS. 3 a to 3 c), and also simultaneously displaying representationsof documents that cite the displayed document. This simultaneous displayallows the user to see, at the same time, both the text of the document,and also the representations of the citing cases.

In the next step 402, the system checks to see if the user has selectedone of the representations. Once the user does select one of therepresentations, step 403 updates the display to show the citing casecorresponding to the selected representation and also to showrepresentations of cases that cite the new displayed case.

FIGS. 5 a to 5 i illustrate an alternate embodiment of the presentinvention in which the citing cases box only lists representations ofcases that cite the displayed text. For example, in the text box 302 ofFIG. 5 a, the first few lines of the Graver Tank case are shown. Asillustrated in FIG. 3 a, there are a number of cases that cite someportion of the Graver Tank case. However, in FIG. 5 a, none of thosecases specifically cite any of the text shown in the text box 302.Instead, the citing cases listed in the citing cases box 311 of FIG. 3 aall cite some other portion of the Graver Tank case.

FIG. 5 b shows the display after the user has scrolled down by using thescroll bar 306 so that the first line 501 of the 4th paragraph of theGraver Tank case is displayed in the text box 302. (For convenience, thebeginning of each paragraph in the text of cases is marked with thecharacters “[Pn],” where n is the paragraph number.) In FIG. 5 b, theciting cases box 311 is no longer empty. The box 311 contains arepresentation of the Pennwalt case, which cites paragraph 4 of theGraver Tank case. Thus, the citing cases box in FIG. 5 b is periodically(or continually) updated so that it contains only representations ofthose citing cases that cite the text displayed in the text box 302. Inthe example shown in FIGS. 5 a to 5 i, the citing cases box 311 containsrepresentations of cases that cite any paragraph that has at least oneline displayed in the text box 302.

As the user further scrolls through the text of the Graver case, theciting cases box 311 is updated as paragraphs are displayed in the textbox 302 and removed from the text box 302. For example, in FIG. 5 c,paragraphs four and five of the Graver Tank case are displayed in theirentirety, and a portion of paragraph six is displayed in the text box302. The citing cases box 311 in FIG. 5 c therefore containsrepresentations of those citing cases that cite paragraphs four, five,and six of the Graver Tank case. When the user continues to scrollthrough the text of the Graver Tank case so that, as shown in FIG. 5 d,only paragraph six of the Graver Tank case is displayed, and the citingcases box 311 is updated so that only the cases that cite paragraph sixof the Graver Tank case are represented in the box 311. Thus,representation 509 (which corresponds to a case citing paragraph four ofthe Graver Tank case) is in the citing cases box 311 in FIG. 5 c, but isremoved from the box 311 when paragraph four is no longer in the textbox 302 as shown in FIG. 5 d.

Representation 504 in the citing cases box 311 corresponds to thePennwalt case, which cites the sixth paragraph of the Graver Tank case.This citation to Graver Tank occurs at the nineteenth paragraph of thePennwalt case, which is reported beginning at page 931 of volume 833 ofthe F.2d Reporter series. If the user were to select representation 504in the citing cases box 311, the display would be updated in theembodiment of FIGS. 5 a to 5 i so that the citing paragraph in thePennwalt case (paragraph 19) is displayed in the text box 302 as shownin FIG. 5 e. The nineteenth paragraph has been displayed because that isthe paragraph that cites the previously displayed 6th paragraph of theGraver Tank case (see FIG. 5 d). The citing cases box 311 is updated tocontain representations of only those cases that cite the nineteenthparagraph of the Pennwalt case.

At 508 in FIG. 5 d, the “function-way-result” doctrine is set forth inparagraph six of the Graver Tank case. The “function-way-result”doctrine is a legal doctrine relating to whether devices perform“substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtainthe same result.” See 508 in FIG. 5 d. In FIG. 5 e, the Graver Tank casehas been cited at 506 by the Pennwalt case to support the“function-way-result” doctrine set forth at 510 in paragraph 19 of thePennwalt case. Thus, paragraph 19 includes a citation to paragraph 6 ofthe Graver Tank case.

As has been described in connection with FIGS. 5 a to 5 e, it ispossible in the present invention to move directly from the cited caseto the position in the citing case where the discussion of the citedcase occurs. This ability to move directly from the cited document(Graver Tank) in the example shown to the citing document (Pennwalt)allows the researcher to easily, quickly, and efficiently evaluate theeffect of the Pennwalt decision on the legal doctrine set forth in theGraver Tank. This is significant and quite useful because the validityof the law set forth in any case or legal writing can be greatlyaffected by cases that later evaluate the earlier case. Thus, legalresearchers have a need for convenient and efficient access to thosecases that discuss specific legal issues decided in any given case. Theforegoing procedure satisfies this need, and greatly simplifies legalresearch.

FIG. 5 e shows an updated citing cases box, this one showing only tworepresentations of citing cases. These cases are the London case and theWilson case, both of which cite paragraph 19 of the Pennwalt case. Whenrepresentation 515 is selected, the display is updated to that shown inFIG. 5 f which shows paragraph 12 of the London case beginning at thetop of the text box 302. Paragraph 12 contains a citation to theprevious case, Pennwalt. In FIG. 5 f, the citation to the Pennwalt caseis shown at 514, and the recitation of the “function-way-result”doctrine is set forth at 516. Thus, the London case cites paragraph 19of the Pennwalt decision as authority for the “function-way-result”doctrine. No cases within the database cite paragraphs 12, 13, or 14 ofthe London case, so the citing cases box 311 is empty.

The user can backtrack back to the Pennwalt decision by selecting therepresentation or button 518 shown in FIG. 5 f, which updates the textbox 302 and the citing cases box 311 to appear just as that shown inFIG. 5 e. The previous case representation 518 is updated to correspondto the London case. Thus, the display is as shown in FIG. 5 g, whichdiffers from that in FIG. 5 e only with respect to representation 518.

From FIG. 5 g, the user again has the opportunity to select therepresentation for the Wilson case which also cites the paragraph 19 ofthe Pennwalt decision. By selecting the representation 520 in FIG. 5 g,the display is updated as shown in FIG. 5 h. Paragraph 36 of the Wilsondecision is shown starting at the top of the text box 302 in FIG. 5 h.The citation to the Pennwalt decision in paragraph 36 of the Wilson caseis indicated at 522. The “function-way-result” doctrine, for which thePennwalt case is cited, is set forth at 524 of FIG. 5 h.

Unlike the London case, there are cases that cite the paragraph of theWilson case which cites the Pennwalt case. Therefore, the citing casesbox 311 in FIG. 5 h is not empty. When representation 526 in the citingcases box 311 is selected, the display is updated to that shown in FIG.5 i.

FIG. 5 i shows the updated display with the text box showing paragraph13 of the Conroy decision, and the citation to the Wilson case at 528.However, the doctrine for which the Wilson case is being relied upon isdifferent than the “function-way-result” doctrine that has been tracedfrom the Graver Tank decision. At 532 of FIG. 5 h, the Wilson case setsforth the proposition that “there can be no infringement if the assertedscope of equivalency of what is literally claimed would encompass theprior art.” This is the proposition for which the Conroy case is citingparagraph 36 of the Wilson decision. The law cited in paragraph 36 ofthe Wilson case is applied at paragraph 530 of FIG. 5 i.

FIG. 6 is a flow chart of steps carried out by an embodiment of thepresent invention that is similar to that described in connection withFIGS. 5 a to 5 i, where step 601 displays a portion of a document, andstep 602 displays in the citing cases box only those representations ofciting documents that cite the displayed portion from step 601. The useris continually monitored to determine at 603 whether the displayed texthas changed (e.g., by virtue of the user scrolling the display text). Ifthe text has changed, the representations of the citing cases areupdated at 604. The user is also monitored at 605 to determine whether aciting document has been selected. When a citing document is selected,the display is updated to show a portion of the selected document. Atstep 602, restarting the procedure, the citing cases box is also updatedto contain representations of citing cases that cite the newly displayedtext.

FIGS. 7 a to 7 d show an alternate embodiment of the present inventionthat is similar to the embodiments shown in connection with FIGS. 5 a to5 i and the flow chart of FIG. 6. The embodiment of FIGS. 7 a to 7 ddiffers from other embodiments in that representations of citing casesremain in the citing cases box after the display has been updated. Inthe previously-described embodiments, the citing cases that no longercorrespond to the text shown on the display are removed from the citingcases box.

In FIG. 7 a, the Pennwalt decision is shown with paragraph 19 of thatdecision shown in the text box 302. Representations of two citing cases(London and Wilson), are shown in the citing cases box 311. Both Londonand Wilson cite paragraph 19 of the Pennwalt decision. When the userselects representation 702 in the citing cases box, the display isupdated as shown in FIG. 7 b. The text box 302 in FIG. 7 b showsparagraph 12 (and 13 and 14) of the London decision. Unlike previousembodiments, however, the representations of the London and the Wilsoncases remain in the citing cases box 311.

Retaining representations of citing cases in the citing cases box 311allows the user to collect an list of relevant cases by traversing anumber of linked cases. This is important because the user may otherwisehave to remember or come back to the cases that he or she initiallydecides not to examine. This situation is illustrated in FIGS. 5 e to 5h, where it was necessary to backtrack from the London case (FIG. 5 f)back to the Pennwalt case (FIG. 5 g), and then to the Wilson case (FIG.5 h) to display all of the cases that cite paragraph 19 of the Pennwaltcase (see FIG. 5 e, and previous discussion). By retainingrepresentations of citing cases, such a procedure is unnecessary. InFIG. 7 b, the Wilson case can be displayed at any time upon selection bythe user of representation 703, even when Wilson does not cite thedisplayed document.

FIG. 7 c shows the updated display after representation 703 is selectedin FIG. 7 b. The citing cases box 311 of FIG. 7 c shows an additionalrepresentation in the citing cases box 311 corresponding to the Conroycase, which cites the displayed paragraph 36 of the Wilson decision.When the representation 704 is selected, the display is updated as shownin FIG. 7 d. As shown in FIG. 7 d, representations of the Conroy, Wilsonand London cases are still shown in the cited cases box.

The displays of FIGS. 7 a through 7 d have a clear button 715 that isused to clear the citing cases box 311 of all representations of citingcases. This permits the user to start collecting citing cases fromscratch at any given point during research. FIGS. 7 b to 7 d also show ahighlight or marker 711 that indicates which representations havealready been displayed. Highlighting in this manner allows the user todetermine, by looking at each representation, those which he or she hasalready studied or already displayed. Such highlighting thereforeprovides a means by which the user will know when he or she has lookedat all of the citing cases. Highlighting can be done as shown in FIG. 7d by placing a marker on or next to each representation, or highlightingcan also be done by changing the color of the representation, bychanging the font, or by any other manner that makes it clear whichcases have been viewed and which cases have not. Similarly, in anotherembodiment, it may be desirable to remove from the citing cases bin thecases that have already been viewed by the user.

FIG. 8 shows a flow chart that is very similar to that of the flow chartin FIG. 6 and also is similar to the embodiment shown in connection withFIGS. 7 a to 7 d. The flow chart in FIG. 8 differs from that of FIG. 6only in that step 802 involves retaining the representations of theprevious citing documents, whereas the corresponding step 602 in FIG. 6does not retain the previous representations.

Another embodiment of the present invention is shown in connection withFIGS. 9 a to 9 d. This embodiment demonstrates that it is possible tokeep a separate bin of citing cases in which to retain all of the casesthat have previously been cited. For example, in FIG. 9 a, the firstportion of the text of the Graver Tank case is shown. In FIG. 9 b, theuser has scrolled through the text of the Graver Tank case for a fewlines. There do not happen to be any cases that cite the displayed textof the FIG. 9 a or 9 b, so the citing cases box 311 is empty in bothsituations.

In FIG. 9 c, the user has scrolled down somewhat so that portions ofparagraphs two through five of the Graver Tank case are displayed. ThePennwalt decision cites paragraph 4 of the Graver Tank case, so arepresentation of the Pennwalt case is displayed in the citing cases box311, and also in the citing cases bin 911. When the user selects therepresentation 902 (or alternatively, 904), the Pennwalt decision isdisplayed as shown in FIG. 9 d and the citing cases box 311 is emptiedbecause no cases (in the database) cite paragraph 13 of the Pennwaltdecision. The citing cases bin 911, however, retains the representationof the previously cited case.

The embodiment of FIGS. 9 a to 9 c operates very similar to that ofFIGS. 7 a to 7 d, the difference being that all cases are retained inthe citing cases bin 911, and the citing cases box 311 only containsthose cases that cite the currently displayed text.

In another embodiment, a citing cases bin similar to that described inconnection with FIGS. 9 a to 9 c could contain all of therepresentations of cases that cite the displayed case, rather thanprevious representations. In other words, representations for all of thecases that cite the displayed case could be listed in the citing casesbin 911, but the citing cases box 311 could be used for only thoserepresentations of cases that cite the text displayed in the text box302. This division or arrangement could effectively convey to the userwhich citing cases cite the displayed text, and which citing cases citesome other portion of the displayed case.

FIGS. 10 a to 10 f illustrate yet another embodiment of the presentinvention in which the citing cases box 311 is not displayed on the samescreen or simultaneously with the text box 302 that contains the text ofthe displayed case. In FIG. 10 a, for example, the text box 302 showsthe Graver Tank opinion, and the title box 304 shows the title of theGraver Tank opinion. The scroll bar 306 allows the user to scrollthrough the Graver Tank opinion in the manner known in the art.

The citation button 1008 allows the user to bring up a window 1001 suchas that shown in FIG. 10 b. This window contains a citing cases box 311,which lists the representations of the cases citing the text displayedin the text box of FIG. 10 a. There are no cases that cite the textdisplayed in FIG. 10 a, so citing cases box 311 in FIG. 10 b is empty.However, this changes as the user scrolls down through the text in themanner shown in FIG. 10 c. The window 1001 that is brought up uponselection of the button 1008 in FIG. 10 c is shown in FIG. 10 d. Theciting cases box 311 in FIG. 10 d shows includes a representation of thePennwalt case. As in the embodiments described above, the user canselect a representation in the citing cases box 311. When therepresentation 1010 is selected in FIG. 10 d, the Pennwalt decision isdisplayed as shown in FIG. 10 e.

FIG. 10 f shows a window 1002 which can be used as an alternative tothat shown in FIG. 10 b. The window 1002 has a citing cases box 311 anda citing cases bin 911, which operate in a manner similar to thatdescribed in connection with FIGS. 9 a to 9 d.

FIGS. 10 a to 10 f describe embodiments in which the text of a case andthe representations of citing documents are not displayedsimultaneously. Rather when button 1008 is selected, window 1001 (or inan alternative embodiment, window 1002) is shown on the display. Thewindow 1001 may completely displace showing the text of the cited case,or it may only partially obstruct the displayed text of the cited case.

FIG. 11 is a flow chart that is similar to the embodiment described inconnection with FIGS. 10 a to 10 f. Step 1101 simply involves displayinga portion of a document. In step 1102, the user is monitored todetermine whether he or she has requested a list of cites (e.g., byselecting the button 1008 in FIG. 10 a). If so, representations of casesciting the displayed text are displayed in step 1103. The user then mayselect one of the representations in step 1104, and if this is done, aportion of the document corresponding to the selected document isdisplayed at step 1105. Alternatively, the user may choose to go back tothe cited case, or in other words, display the text of the cited casethat was displayed at step 1101. See step 1106.

FIGS. 12 a to 12 f illustrate an embodiment of the present inventionthat has been implemented on the Internet's World Wide Web. FIG. 12 ashows a web page displayed in the Netscape browser available fromNetscape Communications Corp. The web page 1201 shown in FIG. 12 acorresponds to page 42 of volume 280 of the U.S. Reports series. Thispage is part of the 1929 U.S. Supreme Court decision of SanitaryRefrigerator Co. v. Winters. The Sanitary Refrigerator case starts onpage 30 of volume 280 of the U.S. Reports. In the World Wide Webimplementation of FIGS. 12 a to 12 f, one or more web servers of thetype known well in the art are connected to the Internet. Forsimplicity, each web page corresponds to the paper pages in the actualbound U.S. Reports. Thus, the web server has a web page for each pagewithin each volume of the U.S. Reports.

Depending on the user's web browser and hardware, some or all of the webpage 1201 will be displayed in the browser display 1202. The scroll bar1203 allows the user to scroll through the web page. FIG. 12 b shows themiddle portion of the web page, which is displayed when the scroll box1207 is moved as shown.

When the scroll box 1207 is moved to the bottom of the scroll bar, asshown in FIG. 12 c, the bottom of the web page is shown. The last lineof page 42 of U.S. Reports volume 280 is shown at 1210 in FIG. 12 c.Below this last line is a representation 1212 of the Graver Tank case.This representation 1212 indicates that the Graver Tank case cites thedisplayed page (i.e., page 42 of U.S. Reports volume 280). Therepresentation 1212 also indicates that the citation to page 42 of theSanitary Refrigerator case is located at page 608 of U.S. Reports volume339.

The representation 1212 in FIG. 12 c is a link to another web page onthe web server database. On the World Wide Web, these links areimplemented with a hypertext protocol, such as HTML (HyperText MarkupLanguage). As is well known in the art, selecting the representation1212 will retrieve another web page from the appropriate web server.This new web page 1213 is shown in FIG. 12 d, and as can be seen, theweb page 1213 corresponds to page 608 of the Graver Tank case fromvolume 339 of the U.S. Reports.

FIG. 12 e is the web page of FIG. 12 d after the user has scrolled downthe page a few lines. The citation to the Sanitary Refrigerator case isshown at 1215 in FIG. 12 e. And as can be seen at 1216 of FIG. 12 e (seealso 1216 at FIG. 12 d), the proposition for which the SanitaryRefrigerator case is cited is the function-way-result doctrine. Thisdoctrine is set forth in the Sanitary Refrigerator case at 1218 in FIG.12 b, which is page 42 of U.S. Reports volume 280.

FIG. 12 f shows the bottom of the Graver Tank web page, which has at1221 representations of citing cases. The Graver Tank text displayed inthe web page of FIGS. 12 d, 12 e, and 12 f corresponds to the first partof paragraph six in FIG. 5 d. Thus, the citing cases shown representedin FIG. 5 d are the same as the eight citing cases represented at 1221of the web page in FIG. 12 f. Selection of one of the eightrepresentations 1221 will retrieve the corresponding web page.

In another embodiment, additional representations may be present at thebottom of the web page of FIG. 12 f. Such additional representations maycorrespond to cases that cite the displayed case generally or at otherpages, and not specifically the displayed page. In other words, it isnot necessary to limit the representations in the embodiment of FIGS. 12a to 12 f to only those cases that cite the displayed page of thedocument.

The World Wide Web implementation illustrated in connection with FIGS.12 a to 12 f is particularly attractive because setting up the databaseof documents and configuring the cross-references to citing cases can berelatively straight-forward. Determining which of the cases cite aparticular page is done, for the most part, by simply searching the textof the cases for a specific citation to each U.S. Reports page. Arepresentation for each case that cites a given page in the U.S. Reportsis generated and incorporated in to the corresponding U.S. Reports webpage. Thus, the citation system used by the court itself is used todetermine the specific cross-references to and from the various cases,so no translation into other pages or paragraphs or line numbers orother units is necessary.

In other embodiments, where a citation system is used that is differentfrom the system employed by the court, the court's citations must betranslated into the citations used by the computerized research system.In other words, if a court cites cases by referencing a page number in aparticular volume, and the research system uses a paragraph-basedcitation system (e.g., as in FIGS. 5 a to 5 i), the court's page numbercitations will be translated into corresponding paragraph numbercitations.

Although more tedious translation may be required, it is preferred thatsmaller units be used for the citation system. For example, a citationto a given page does not unequivocally identify which of the statementsof law is being cited on that page. Therefore, not all of the citingcases for a particular page will be helpful to the researcher when he orshe is interested in only one of the many statements of law occurring onthe page. This problem is illustrated in FIGS. 5 h and 5 i, where theConroy decision cited the Wilson case for a proposition that wasdifferent than the function-way-result issue that was being reviewed inFIGS. 5 a to 5 g. This occurred because paragraph 36 of the Wilson casecontained more than one citable statement of law. A paragraph-basedcitation system is often better than a page-based citation systembecause paragraphs are usually smaller than pages and therefore containfewer statements of law than do pages. But as shown in FIGS. 5 h and 5i, a paragraph-based citation system is not immune to the problem.

A citation system employing an even smaller unit, such as asentence-based citation system, would virtually eliminate the foregoingproblem. However, such a citation system requires a significant amountof tedious translation if citations are not already in a sentence-basedform.

In another embodiment of the present invention, the representations inthe citing cases box would not necessarily correspond to the displayedtext, but would rather correspond to displayed text that is specificallyselected (i.e., highlighted) by the user. Such an embodiment would beparticularly appropriate for a sentence-based citation system, becausethe selection of one or more sentences would indicate which citing casesare of interest to the user. In other words, when the user has selecteda specific section of the displayed portion of a document, this can bean indication that the user wishes to see only those citing cases thatcorrespond to the selected portion. Thus, in an embodiment of thepresent invention, the citing cases box could contain representations ofonly those citing cases that cite the selected portion of the displayedtext.

It is contemplated that the present invention will be implemented, in atleast some embodiments, on a computer that employs software to carry outthe functions described above. The software is stored on a data storagemedium that is accessible by the computer in a manner known in the art.The effective implementation of the present invention is obviously notnecessarily dependent on the type of storage medium employed, and thedata storage medium could therefore be of any type (including, withoutlimitation, optical, magnetic, or hardware-based storage media).

Although the present invention has been shown and described with respectto preferred embodiments, various changes and modifications that areobvious to a person skilled in the art to which the invention pertains,even if not shown or specifically described herein, are deemed to liewithin the spirit and scope of the invention and the following claims.The present invention is not to be limited to any specific databaseimplementation or to any specific network implementation. What iscontemplated is any system appropriate for practicing the invention asset forth in the claims. The cases and corresponding citing documentsdescribed herein are merely for illustration purposes, and noinvention-related significance is to be given to them other than thatspecifically mentioned herein. In the claims, any means-plus-functionclauses are intended to encompass not only structural equivalents butalso equivalent structures. Any specific features or aspects of theembodiments or implementations described or illustrated herein, however,are not intended to limit the scope of any claimed invention in a mannernot specifically required by the claim directed to that invention.

1. (canceled)
 2. A method performed by one or more computers, the methodcomprising: receiving a first request for a first document from a clientcomputer over a network, wherein the first document is a judicialopinion; responding to the first request by transmitting the firstdocument over the network to the client computer to be displayed in afirst user interface element of a user interface on the client computer;identifying a plurality of second documents that are different from thefirst document and that include references to the first document,wherein the second documents are different judicial opinions citing thejudicial opinion; and transmitting to the client computer over thenetwork information about each of the second documents for display inthe user interface, including transmitting to the client computerinstructions that, when executed on the client computer, cause theclient computer to: display the first document in the first userinterface element; display, in the first user interface element with thefirst document, a reference request user interface element forrequesting information about the second documents; and in response to auser selecting the reference request user interface element and withoutfurther user interaction, display a second user interface elementdifferent from the first user interface element, and display in thesecond user interface element a citation to one of the differentjudicial opinions citing the judicial opinion.
 3. The method of claim 2,wherein the instructions, when executed by the client computer, causethe client computer to display the second user interface element so thatit completely displaces the first user interface element.
 4. The methodof claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the clientcomputer, cause the client computer display the second user interfaceelement so that it partially obstructs the first user interface element.5. The method of claim 2, wherein the first user interface element is awindow, and wherein the second user interface element is a differentwindow.
 6. (canceled)
 7. The method of claim 2, wherein the firstdocument includes first content created by a first author, and whereinthe first content includes the first author's commentary about aparticular topic, and wherein the first author's commentary is publishedin the first document so that it is widely available to those havingaccess to the network, and wherein the second document includes secondcontent created by a second author, and wherein the second content ispublished in the second document so that it is widely available to thosehaving access to the network.
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein thesecond author is different from the first author, and wherein the secondcontent is created by the second author after the first content iscreated by the first author.
 9. The method of claim 7, wherein one ofthe references to the first document is used to support an opinionexpressed by the second author in the second document.
 10. The method ofclaim 2, wherein the second document is not part of the first document.11. The method of claim 2, wherein the representation of the seconddocument is a link to the second document.
 12. A system comprising oneor more computers configured to perform operations comprising: receivinga first request for a first document from a client computer over anetwork, wherein the first document is a judicial opinion; responding tothe first request by transmitting the first document over the network tothe client computer to be displayed in a first user interface element ofa user interface on the client computer; identifying a plurality ofsecond documents that are different from the first document and thatinclude references to the first document, wherein the second documentsare different judicial opinions citing the judicial opinion; andtransmitting to the client computer over the network information abouteach of the second documents for display in the user interface,including transmitting to the client computer instructions that, whenexecuted on the client computer, cause the client computer to: displaythe first document in the first user interface element; display, in thefirst user interface element with the first document, a referencerequest user interface element for requesting information about thesecond documents; and in response to a user selecting the referencerequest user interface element and without further user interaction,display a second user interface element different from the first userinterface element, and display in the second user interface element acitation to one of the different judicial opinions citing the judicialopinion.
 13. The system of claim 12, wherein the instructions, whenexecuted by the client computer, cause the client computer to displaythe second user interface element so that it completely displaces thefirst user interface element.
 14. The system of claim 12, wherein theinstructions, when executed by the client computer, cause the clientcomputer display the second user interface element so that it partiallyobstructs the first user interface element.
 15. The system of claim 12,wherein the first user interface element is a window, and wherein thesecond user interface element is a different window.
 16. (canceled) 17.The system of claim 12, wherein the first document includes firstcontent created by a first author, and wherein the first contentincludes the first author's commentary about a particular topic, andwherein the first author's commentary is published in the first documentso that it is widely available to those having access to the network,and wherein the second document includes second content created by asecond author, and wherein the second content is published in the seconddocument so that it is widely available to those having access to thenetwork.
 18. The system of claim 17, wherein the second author isdifferent from the first author, and wherein the second content iscreated by the second author after the first content is created by thefirst author.
 19. The system of claim 17, wherein one of the referencesto the first document is used to support an opinion expressed by thesecond author in the second document.
 20. The system of claim 12,wherein the second document is not part of the first document.
 21. Thesystem of claim 12, wherein the representation of the second document isa link to the second document.